A Tale of Two Colleges
This week brings fascinating news from two colleges. The two institutions are facing almost opposite situations, and the contrast between them is both remarkable and illustrative. Because change occurs constantly, Christian organizations are constantly required to apply their principles to new situations. Cedarville University and Faith Baptist Bible College provide a clear contrast in terms of how new applications might take place.
The school that is now Cedarville University started out as a Bible institute in Cleveland. During the early 1950s it acquired the name and campus of Cedarville College, formerly a Presbyterian school. For many years, Cedarville College staked out its identity as a fundamentalist, Baptist institution. Under the leadership of James T. Jeremiah, it was one of the flagship schools identified with the Regular Baptist movement.
In 1978, Paul Dixon became president of the college. He brought with him a vision to make Cedarville into a world-class university. Regular Baptists, however, had neither the numerical nor the economic strength to fulfill his dream. Dixon needed a larger constituency and broader appeal, and in pursuit of these goals he began to downplay some of the distinctives that Regular Baptists thought important. There was a softening of ecclesiastical separation as the platform featured a broader variety of evangelicals. There was an increasing openness and even friendliness toward the more current trends in popular culture. There was even a shifting of the criteria for faculty selection. By the early 1990s, Cedarville professors were putting themselves publicly on record for their (belated) support of the Equal Rights Amendment—legislation that was almost universally opposed by conservative Christians of all sorts.
As Cedarville broadened its appeal, it experienced growing tensions with Regular Baptists. These tensions came to a head when, at the end of Dixon’s tenure, Cedarville formally identified with the Southern Baptist state convention in Ohio. Under the new president, William Brown, the university refused to endorse the Statement of Purpose of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, a requirement for partnering institutions. For both these reasons, the GARBC terminated its partnership with Cedarville in 2006.
The divorce was ugly, at least on the Cedarville side. Since the GARBC national conference was held in Michigan that year, Cedarville supporters were transported by busloads to try to overwhelm the vote. At one point some threatened to rush the platform if a particular parliamentary ruling did not go their way. In the end, however, the association had the votes to remove Cedarville from partnership.
Shortly thereafter, scandal erupted on campus as a couple of the most conservative tenured professors were terminated suddenly. Alarmed constituents formed watchdog groups and began to spread word of theological aberrations. Most Cedarville constituents found these charges difficult to believe, but the university continued to show signs of movement away from its fundamentalist roots. In an attempt to reassure conservatives, in 2011 the university adopted white papers dealing with creation, with justification, and with divine omniscience.
The situation, however, continued to deteriorate. In 2012, a professor was fired for teaching that the opening chapters of Genesis were non-historical. Then two philosophy professors published that they could not vote Republican since they supported universal health care, decreased defense spending, increased spending on social programs, and economic redistribution. Consequently, the question was no longer whether Cedarville should be considered a fundamentalist institution, but whether it should even be considered a conservative one.
In response, the board placed the philosophy major under review and indicated its intention to end the program. In October, President Brown tendered his resignation, followed by a key vice president in January 2013—many believed under pressure from the board. In response to concerns that Cedarville might be moving in a fundamentalist direction, board chairman Lorne Sharnberg was quoted as saying that Cedarville “isn’t moving anywhere. We’re staying right where we’ve always been.” Ironically, these are the very words that the Cedarville leadership used to say when it was moving away from fundamentalism.
While these events have been taking place at Cedarville, Faith Baptist Bible College has been facing a difficult decision of its own. The school long ago staked out a position that was traditionally dispensationalist, strongly Baptist, and conservative in its appropriation of contemporary popular culture. It has required its students to become members in churches that share these commitments.
Through the years, one of the congregations that allied itself with Faith was Saylorville Baptist Church. Dozens of students and several staff are members at Saylorville, and in many ways (for example, its commitment to evangelism) Saylorville models values that Faith shares. Over the years, however, Saylorville has adopted an increasingly contemporary ministry, and it has recently dropped the word Baptist from its name. As Saylorville has made these moves, Faith has felt considerable pressure to soften its commitment to its principles and to broaden its appeal.
Decades ago, one of the presidents of Faith Baptist Bible College (David Nettleton) argued that when Christians disagree, they must either limit their message or limit their fellowship. This past week, Faith’s board made the decision to stand by its message and allow its fellowship to shrink. Students and staff will no longer be permitted to join Saylorville Church.
This may represent the hardest decision that the administration and board at Faith has ever made. They are not angry with Saylorville. They love its pastor and its staff, and they believe that Saylorville is in some ways a good model. They are not denouncing the church, but they are separating from it at one level. They are making this move because, if they do not, their principles will be obscured. They are aware that the decision will be costly.
Cedarville and Faith represent opposite approaches to the application of principles in changing situations. Cedarville committed itself to wider influence and was willing to sacrifice principles in order to obtain it. Faith has committed itself to maintain its principles, and it is willing to accept narrower influence in order to uphold them. Both have responded to change, but they have responded in opposite directions.
Granted, sometimes Christians hold mistaken principles that they ought to revise. Simply to abandon principles in favor of increased influence, however, is a devil’s bargain. Once principles have been obscured, they become very difficult to clarify. Both Faith and Cedarville will face some unhappy constituents. Cedarville’s will be unhappy because their school’s position is not clear. Faith’s will be unhappy because their school’s is. The difference is this: no one is attracted to obscurity and uncertainty, but some may be attracted to a clearly stated position when it is consistently maintained.
Christ Jesus Lay in Death’s Strong Bands
Martin Luther (1483-1546), translated by Richard Massie (1800-1887)
Christ Jesus lay in death’s strong bands,
For our offenses given;
But now at God’s right hand he stands
And brings us life from heaven;
Therefore let us joyful be
And sing to God right thankfully
Loud songs of hallelujah. Hallelujah!
It was a strange and dreadful strife
When life and death contended;
The victory remained with life,
The reign of death was ended;
Holy Scripture plainly saith
That death is swallowed up by death,
His sting is lost for ever. Hallelujah!
Here the true Paschal Lamb we see,
Whom God so freely gave us;
He died on the accursed tree—
So strong his love!—to save us.
See, his blood doth mark our door;
Faith points to it, death passes o’er,
And Satan cannot harm us. Hallelujah!
So let us keep the festival
Whereto the Lord invites us;
Christ is himself the Joy of all,
The Sun that warms and lights us.
By his grace he doth impart
Eternal sunshine to the heart;
The night of sin is ended. Hallelujah!
Then let us feast this joyful day
On Christ, the Bread of heaven;
The Word of grace hath purged away
The old and evil leaven.
Christ alone our souls will feed,
He is our meat and drink indeed;
Faith lives upon no other. Hallelujah!
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 175 views
Well, though the discussion has been interesting, we seem to have strayed from the original issue.
Fourth Baptist Church of Minneapolis (now Plymouth) had an institute in place at the same time they operated a seminary. The institute was very helpful, I’m sure, though all I ever saw was their printed class materials. I attended their seminary after a very good education in a local church in Illinois. I entered Bible College and whizzed through all the Bible curriculum because of that local church’s dedication to a challenging program. When we quizzed (in Sunday pm youth group) over books of the Bible, we practically had to memorize the chapters because of the high level of competition(!). Same at our summer camp (Camp Joy in Wisconsin). Even though the church was (too) strict in many ways, I still entered Bible College with the experience of having served in preaching and teaching and music capacities. Churches CAN be great for that—and MORE! So I don’t see a conflict between local churches and seminaries. They should complement (and compliment) one another!
I am no longer in the GARBC or even the Baptist fold. Not a “forever” or antagonistic statement but is due partly to an impression over many years that Cedarville COULD have remained more conservative had their innovations been more welcome and their errors more graciously met with friendly counsel. I heard and read things c. Cedarville that were generated by mostly GARBC people that made me cringe. I heard and read things from Faith that also made me cringe for being of a (though most carefully worded) critical nature. I want both schools to be blessed. I’d welcome Dr. Bauder to the presidency of Cedarville AND of Faith.
gdwightlarson "You can be my brother without being my twin."
I am in my second year of my MDiv from Maranatha, which I’m completing online. I came there with a BA in Emergency & Disaster Management, which I admit is a pretty bizarre segue into Christian education! I had no academic Christian training prior to Seminary - just discipleship in the local church. I was military for 10 years so I was at quite a few churches!
Online education is a blessing for folks who are established in life and can’t uproot and go to a brick and mortar school. I’ve been married 10 years, have three kids and a mortgage. My house is worth $60000 less than when I bought it five years back. I each teen Sunday School at my local church. I’m not going anywhere. Online education is outstanding and it should not be knocked. I did my AA at a traditional school, my BA online and my MA online. I’ve seen both. There is no quality difference. Some schools probably do it badly - mine haven’t.
There has been some discussion here critical of seminary education. Seminary is not “necessary,” but it is very helpful. I’m a deacon at my church, and we called a Pastor with “only” an MA from a hard-right fundy school to be our Pastor. He is a good man and is studying for his MDiv now. His preaching has gotten better once he started his MDiv. School helps - deny it all you want. He admits his preaching has gotten better. I have never had a Pastor with anything but a BA. They have all been good men who loved the Lord. They would have handled the Word better if they had more education. This is not a slam - it is a statement of fact, no malice intended. I chose to go for my MDiv because of this - my Pastor even recommended I get the MDiv. People can be critical of higher Christian education if they wish - though I don’t know why. What are we afraid of?
There has also been some mention of the cost of education. The cost of education is ridiculous - there is no denying it. The GI Bill takes this worry away. I have enough to get my MDiv and a DMin sometime down the road, and not pay anything out of pocket. This is a blessing many folks don’t have. Outside of joining the military or racking up enough debt to choke an elephant, there doesn’t appear to be many options. I have seen some quality institutions, like Columbia Evangelical Seminary or Veritas School of Theology, who are trying to begin to fill this gap. They lack accreditation, though, if that is important to you.
Seminaries do not exist to put a stamp of approval on a man - the local church does that. I admit I have much less experience than other folks here, but when we called our current Pastor we didn’t care about his degree - we wanted to talk to him. Those who see Seminary as a rubber stamp for Pastoral leadership either misunderstand the process or simply have a different process than what I am familiar with!
I apologize for continuing down a rabbit trail which has nothing to do with the original point of this topic - but I wanted to contribute my bit to this fascinating discussion.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
For those of you who have the “seminary is the only way,” how should a missionary go about training nationals to be pastors/church planters? Would you argue that they need to go back to the US to learn at our seminaries? Would you argue the first missionary on a particular field should build a seminary before a church so that nationals can be trained properly?
I think there is a clear distinction in purpose between the different institutions we’re discussing. Bible Institutes and Colleges train workers. Seminaries train leaders. Doctoral programs train scholars. Workers, leaders and scholars are all needed. Some are on the front-lines, others are training those who are going to the front-lines. There is no distinction of worthiness between these different roles. I am by no means suggesting somebody who went to a Bible College cannot be a leader or a scholar. I am merely saying that getting progressively higher Christian education greatly assists along the way.
I don’t seriously think anybody would suggest a “seminary” must be planted on the mission field before a church. I do believe everyone would agree that some kind of institute/college/whatever must be established to train local Pastors.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Would you argue the first missionary on a particular field should build a seminary before a church so that nationals can be trained properly?
Not only that… but in keeping with the OP, said seminary should have Baptist in the name… :D
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
For those of you who have the “seminary is the only way,” how should a missionary go about training nationals to be pastors/church planters?
Remember that seminary is about training. So he should train in some type of formal way, teaching what they need to know. They most likely should not come to the states for it because of both expense, cultural differences, family, ministry, etc.
No one is doubting that you can acquire a tremendous education from Seminary. I have an undergrad and am working on a masters right now. I love it. I would recommend that others learn everything they possibly can from good teachers.
My objection from the beginning was to Kevin’s absurd statement that seminary is a requirement to avoid an ignorant ministry. I went back and saw that he also was talking about how the preacher needed to be skilled in rhetoric. I remember Paul saying something about that somewhere.
God requires the pastors of the church to train up the faithful men. Because of various issues clouding the NT church pattern of ministry (including single pastor), people have determined they need another program to fulfill the function of the church because the church can’t do it.
If the church is not training up the faithful men, they think they can ship them off to a school to do it for them. It is cheaper for the church that way I suppose. However, they then get into these disputes about whether a school answers to the churches or if the schools answer to the dollar.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Larry]Larry, that might be true in many cases, but in the countries that are closed to American missionaries, it is often most effective to bring Christian leaders from those countries to the US for schooling so they can return and educate people in their homeland.For those of you who have the “seminary is the only way,” how should a missionary go about training nationals to be pastors/church planters?
Remember that seminary is about training. So he should train in some type of formal way, teaching what they need to know. They most likely should not come to the states for it because of both expense, cultural differences, family, ministry, etc.
My grandpa, Eldon Brock, served 20 years in the pastorate and 20 years as the camp director of Lake Ann Camp in Michigan. Since his “retirement” he has started two missions agencies. He started Closed Door Ministries (which he later handed off to its current president) to “Assist a few to disciple many to reach millions.” One of the first initiatives was bringing key teachers/administrators in a Bible college in Burma over to the states for advanced seminary degrees so they could return and better train up national pastors.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[James K]Kevin, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not intentionally insulting. My objection to your statement was not used to excuse a poor education, but where you have your confidence. You believe that the seminary is a must for a good ministry. I disagree but don’t think anymore needs to be said at this point.
James, I totally agree with you and understand what you’re trying to say. The church of “Christendom” clings tightly to its dying institutional ways which have professionalized the ministry. How in the world did the first few centuries of the early church survive without Seminary? The local church is supposed to be the place of training pastors and teachers. But we have outsourced this to seminaries since we have bought in to the Christendom mode of the church that began with the Catholic church and came to its fullest expression in the middle ages.
I would like to see online seminaries like Veritas School of Theology (see the banner ad on this site) flourish more and more so that training that the local church lacks expertise in can be accessible for local churches and men can be trained in their churches in the midst of real ministry. Seminary takes a guy out of the context of real life on life ministry, extracts him to a classroom and then puts him back into real ministry like taking a guy out of a battle field, flying him 50,000 feet above the battle for training and then putting him back on the ground.
[Kevin T. Bauder]I would sooner have my child in a Catholic university or a state school than in Cedarville University.
Kevin
…but it is statements like this that make me glad that I no longer identify with the vast majority of contemporary fundamentalists. There is also a surreal resemblance in Kevin in this post and his replies compared to the article last week involving Ketchum that reminds one of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. So very confusing. And absolutely ludicrous.
And disappointing.
And unfortunately, typical.
smh
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
William D
Seminary takes a guy out of the context of real life on life ministry, extracts him to a classroom and then puts him back into real ministry like taking a guy out of a battle field, flying him 50,000 feet above the battle for training and then putting him back on the ground.
Surely you are being sarcastic here … There is no conservative seminary in the world that teleports you away from the local church, imprisons you into a classroom, then parachutes you back into local ministry after studies are over. Seminary is academic instruction designed to complement the practical, hands-on discipleship which should be taking place in the local church. Your characterization of Seminary is absolutely incorrect. You are either being sarcastic or are significantly misinformed.
James K
If the church is not training up the faithful men, they think they can ship them off to a school to do it for them. It is cheaper for the church that way I suppose. However, they then get into these disputes about whether a school answers to the churches or if the schools answer to the dollar.
James, I understand what you’re saying. I think many people here are on the same page as you. The church is where the rubber meets the road. The Seminary is where you get academics - the church is where theory becomes reality. If you can’t translate theory into reality in front of real, flesh and blood people, you will have a difficult time in ministry.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I agree, Tyler. That sure wasn’t my experience in Bible college or seminary.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Dan Burrell][Kevin T. Bauder]I would sooner have my child in a Catholic university or a state school than in Cedarville University.
Kevin
…but it is statements like this that make me glad that I no longer identify with the vast majority of contemporary fundamentalists. There is also a surreal resemblance in Kevin in this post and his replies compared to the article last week involving Ketchum that reminds one of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. So very confusing. And absolutely ludicrous.
And disappointing.
And unfortunately, typical.
smh
Maybe you missed this section of his article:
The situation, however, continued to deteriorate. In 2012, a professor was fired for teaching that the opening chapters of Genesis were non-historical. Then two philosophy professors published that they could not vote Republican since they supported universal health care, decreased defense spending, increased spending on social programs, and economic redistribution. Consequently, the question was no longer whether Cedarville should be considered a fundamentalist institution, but whether it should even be considered a conservative one.
In response, the board placed the philosophy major under review and indicated its intention to end the program. In October, President Brown tendered his resignation, followed by a key vice president in January 2013—many believed under pressure from the board. In response to concerns that Cedarville might be moving in a fundamentalist direction, board chairman Lorne Sharnberg was quoted as saying that Cedarville “isn’t moving anywhere. We’re staying right where we’ve always been.” Ironically, these are the very words that the Cedarville leadership used to say when it was moving away from fundamentalism.
I think that what Bauder is saying is that he’d rather have his kids in an environment hostile to Christianity (Catholic or secular) than immerse them in some kind of “Jesus light” school where lip service beliefs are practiced in chapel while the professors tear apart the faith under the guise of ‘Christian academia’. It was only last year that Cedarville fired professors for teaching principles contrary to God’s word, so why should I think that things are getting any better?
Personally, I’d MUCH rather have my kids in a school where Christianity is looked at askance than immerse them in “lip service faith”.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[TylerR]Online education is a blessing for folks who are established in life and can’t uproot and go to a brick and mortar school. I’ve been married 10 years, have three kids and a mortgage.
This has been my experience as well. On-line seminary education has been a blessing to both me and my church.
[TylerR] Seminary is not “necessary,” but it is very helpful. I’m a deacon at my church, and we called a Pastor with “only” an MA from a hard-right fundy school to be our Pastor. He is a good man and is studying for his MDiv now. His preaching has gotten better once he started his MDiv. School helps - deny it all you want. He admits his preaching has gotten better. I have never had a Pastor with anything but a BA. They have all been good men who loved the Lord. They would have handled the Word better if they had more education.
At this point, I lean toward seminary being necessary because it is so helpful. A good seminary education will provide a man the tools to better exegete, study, and teach God’s Word. A good seminary education will provide a man the tools to identify, expose, and correct theological error within and without his congregation. I’ve attended churches where the pastor is ill-equipped to do either, and that was reflected in his preaching and in how he dealt with sin / error within the church. Like Tyler said, these pastors were all good men who loved the Lord, but they were not equipped to properly exegete God’s Word, and yes, that includes not knowing the original languages.
As for missionaries, I am thankful that there are men like Dr. David Alan Black (http://www.daveblackonline.com/blog.htm) who are not only top-notch NT Greek scholars but who are also passionate missionaries who spend considerable time and money traveling and teaching believers in third-world countries. May his tribe increase!
As for Cedarville, I have family members who work there and who have decided to keep a low profile during this latest spat. Jay mentioned that Cedarville is paying lip service to Christianity, but there are still many good, godly folks who work there and who don’t. But that being said, I attended a fundamentalist college during my undergrad that I would also describe as paying lip service to Christianity. So, it’s not necessarily doctrinal purity that is the problem.
Larry, that might be true in many cases, but in the countries that are closed to American missionaries, it is often most effective to bring Christian leaders from those countries to the US for schooling so they can return and educate people in their homeland.
There are a lot of ways to do it both in country and out of country, and I am familiar with a number of these closed country types of ministries. That’s one reason I said, “most likely should not come.” There are always various things to be considered, and those leading it should consider a variety of issues.
Discussion